-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2014Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal 'break' allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal 'break' allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to the subretinal space, resulting in retinal separation. It occurs in about 1 in 10,000 people a year.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different surgical interventions in people with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment? What are the effects of interventions to treat proliferative vitreoretinopathy occurring as a complication of retinal detachment or previous treatment for retinal detachment? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: corticosteroids, daunorubicin, fluorouracil plus low molecular weight heparin, pneumatic retinopexy, scleral buckling, short-acting or long-acting gas tamponade, silicone oil tamponade, and vitrectomy.
Topics: Humans; Retinal Detachment; Vitreoretinopathy, Proliferative
PubMed: 24807890
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2010Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal "break" allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal "break" allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to the subretinal space, resulting in retinal separation. It occurs in about 1 in 10,000 people a year.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent progression from retinal breaks or lattice degeneration to retinal detachment? What are the effects of different surgical interventions in people with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment? What are the effects of interventions to treat proliferative vitreoretinopathy occurring as a complication of retinal detachment or previous treatment for retinal detachment? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 21 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: corticosteroids, cryotherapy, daunorubicin, fluorouracil plus low molecular weight heparin, laser photocoagulation, pneumatic retinopexy, scleral buckling, short-acting or long-acting gas tamponade, silicone oil tamponade, and vitrectomy.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Retinal Detachment; Scleral Buckling; Silicone Oils; Vitrectomy; Vitreoretinopathy, Proliferative
PubMed: 21406128
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2008Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal "break" allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common form of retinal detachment, where a retinal "break" allows the ingress of fluid from the vitreous cavity to the subretinal space, resulting in retinal separation. It occurs in about 1 in 10,000 people a year.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent progression from retinal breaks or lattice degeneration to retinal detachment? What are the effects of different surgical interventions in people with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment? What are the effects of interventions to treat proliferative vitreoretinopathy occurring as a complication of retinal detachment or previous treatment for retinal detachment? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to September 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 8 systematic reviews, RCTs or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: cryotherapy, fluorouracil plus low-molecular weight heparin added to infusion solution during vitrectomy surgery for proliferative vitreoretinopathy, laser photocoagulation, pneumatic retinopexy, scleral buckling, short-acting or long-acting gas tamponade, and silicone oil vitrectomy.
Topics: Humans; Retinal Detachment; Scleral Buckling; Silicone Oils; Treatment Outcome; Vitrectomy
PubMed: 19450333
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021A rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of the neurosensory retina from the retinal pigment epithelium caused by a full-thickness break associated with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of the neurosensory retina from the retinal pigment epithelium caused by a full-thickness break associated with vitreous traction. While pneumatic retinopexy (PR), scleral buckle (SB), and vitrectomy are all well-received surgical interventions for eyes with RRD, their relative effectiveness has remained controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of PR versus SB or PR versus a combination treatment of SB and vitrectomy for people with RRD and to summarize any data on economic measures and quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; and four other databases on 11 March 2021. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB (with or without vitrectomy) for eyes with RRD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
After screening for eligibility, two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. We followed systematic review standards as set by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we identified and included one new randomized controlled trial. Together with two trials from the 2015 version of the review, we included three trials (276 eyes of 274 participants) comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB. None compared PR versus a combined treatment of SB and vitrectomy. Of the three trials, one was a small study (published in 1996) with 20 participants (20 eyes) enrolled in Ireland and followed for a mean of 16 months; the second (published in 1989) included 196 participants (198 eyes) in the US followed for at least six months, and the third (published in 2021) was conducted in Italy and enrolled 58 participants (58 eyes) with a follow-up of 12 months. Overall, poor reporting quality resulted in unclear or high risks of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that PR may achieve retinal reattachment slightly less often than SB (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.02; I = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR may also display a higher risk of recurrent retinal detachment (low-certainty evidence), but the RR estimates were very imprecise (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.98; I = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). All three studies described the final visual acuity (VA) after the two procedures. However, the results were reported using different metrics and could not be combined. One study (196 participants) reported the proportion of eyes with a final VA of 20/40 or greater and favored PR (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.65; low-certainty evidence), whereas in the 2021 study, both groups showed an improvement in final VA and there was no evidence of a difference between the two (mean difference [MD] -0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.19; low-certainty evidence). No study reported data on quality of life or economic measures. Postoperative safety outcomes generally favored PR versus SB (low/very low-certainty evidence); however, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the risk of any operative ocular adverse events (RR 0.55 CI 0.28 to 1.11; 276 eyes), glaucoma (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.46; 198 eyes), macular pucker (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.11; 256 eyes), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.96; 276 eyes), and persistent diplopia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.09; 256 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR experienced fewer postoperative cataract developments (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 153 eyes), choroidal detachments (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57; 198 eyes), and myopic shift (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10; 256 eyes).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The current update confirms the findings of the previous review. PR may result in lower rates of reattachment and higher rates of recurrence than SB, but carries a lower burden of postoperative complications. The effects of these two procedures on other functional outcomes and quality of life remain uncertain. The available evidence remains insufficient and of low quality.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retina; Retinal Detachment; Scleral Buckling; Vitrectomy
PubMed: 34762741
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008350.pub3 -
Ophthalmologica. Journal International... 2022The efficacy and safety of scleral buckling (SB) versus combination SB and pars plana vitrectomy (SB + PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The efficacy and safety of scleral buckling (SB) versus combination SB and pars plana vitrectomy (SB + PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair remains unclear.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify comparative studies published from Jan 2000-Jun 2021 that reported on the efficacy and/or safety following SB and SB + PPV for RRD repair. Final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) represented the primary endpoint, while reattachment rates and ocular adverse events were secondary endpoints. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
RESULTS
Across 18 studies, 3912 SB and 3300 SB + PPV eyes were included. Final BCVA was nonsignificantly different between SB and SB + PPV (20/38 vs. 20/66 Snellen; WMD = -0.11 LogMAR; 95% CI: [-0.29, 0.07]; p = 0.23). Primary reattachment rate was similar between procedures (p = 0.74); however, SB alone achieved a significantly higher final reattachment rate (97.40% vs. 93.86%; RR = 1.03; 95% CI: [1.00, 1.06]; p = 0.04). Compared to SB + PPV, SB alone had a significantly lower risk of postoperative macular edema (RR = 0.69; 95% CI: [0.47, 1.00]; p = 0.05) and cataract formation (RR = 0.34; 95% CI: [0.12, 0.96]; p = 0.04). The incidence of macular hole, epiretinal membrane, residual subretinal fluid, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, elevated intraocular pressure, and extraocular muscle dysfunction were similar between SB and SB + PPV.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no significant difference in final BCVA between SB + PPV and SB alone in RRD. SB alone offers a slightly higher final reattachment rate along with a reduced risk of macular edema and cataract. Primary reattachment rate and the incidence of other complications were similar between the two procedures.
Topics: Cataract; Humans; Macular Edema; Retinal Detachment; Retrospective Studies; Scleral Buckling; Treatment Outcome; Vitrectomy
PubMed: 35533652
DOI: 10.1159/000524888 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a full-thickness break in the sensory retina, caused by vitreous traction on the retina. While pneumatic retinopexy, scleral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a full-thickness break in the sensory retina, caused by vitreous traction on the retina. While pneumatic retinopexy, scleral buckle, and vitrectomy are the accepted surgical interventions for eyes with RRD, their relative effectiveness has remained controversial.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to assess the effectiveness and safety of pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle or pneumatic retinopexy versus a combination treatment of scleral buckle and vitrectomy for people with RRD. The secondary objectives were to summarize any data on economic measures and quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 January 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle (with or without vitrectomy) for eyes with RRD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
After screening for eligibility, two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. We followed systematic review standards as set forth by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two randomized controlled trials (218 eyes of 216 participants) comparing the effectiveness of pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for eyes with RRD. We identified no studies investigating the comparison of pneumatic retinopexy versus a combination treatment of scleral buckle and vitrectomy. Of the two included studies, one was a small study with 20 participants enrolled in Ireland and followed for an average of 16 months. The second study was larger with 196 participants (198 eyes) enrolled in the United States and followed for at least 6 months. Cautious interpretation of the results is warranted, since we graded the evidence as low to moderate quality due to insufficient reporting of study methods and imprecision and inconsistency among study results.Both studies showed fewer eyes achieving retinal reattachment in the pneumatic retinopexy group compared with the scleral buckle group by six-months follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.02, 218 eyes); however, we are uncertain as to whether the intervention has an important effect on reattachment because the results are imprecise. Eyes in the pneumatic retinopexy group also were more likely to have had a recurrence of retinal detachment by six-months follow-up (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.24, 218 eyes); however, we are uncertain as to whether the intervention has an important effect on recurrence because the lower CI equals no difference. Neither study reported mean change in visual acuity, quality of life data, or economic measures. Differences between the pneumatic retinopexy group and scleral buckle group were uncertain due to small numbers of events with respect to operative ocular adverse events (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.42, 218 eyes), development of cataract (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.54, 198 eyes), glaucoma (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.91, 198 eyes), macular pucker (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.67, 198 eyes), and proliferative vitreoretinopathy (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.96, 218 eyes). Fewer eyes in the pneumatic retinopexy group compared with the scleral buckle group experienced choroidal detachment (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57, 198 eyes) or myopic shift equal to or greater than 1 diopter spherical equivalent (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13, 198 eyes).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence suggests that pneumatic retinopexy may result in lower rates of reattachment and higher rates of recurrence than scleral buckle for eyes with RRD, but does not rule out no difference between procedures. The relative safety of the procedures is uncertain and the relative effects of these procedures in terms of other patient-important outcomes, such as visual acuity and quality of life, is unknown. Due to the limited information available between pneumatic retinopexy and scleral buckle procedures, future research addressing these evidence gaps are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Insufflation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Retinal Detachment; Scleral Buckling; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25950286
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008350.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2012A giant retinal tear is a full-thickness retinal break that extends circumferentially around the retina for 90 degrees or more in the presence of a posteriorly detached... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A giant retinal tear is a full-thickness retinal break that extends circumferentially around the retina for 90 degrees or more in the presence of a posteriorly detached vitreous. It causes significant visual morbidity from retinal detachment and proliferative vitreoretinopathy. The fellow eye of patients who have had a spontaneous giant retinal tear has an increased risk of developing a giant retinal tear, a retinal detachment or both. Interventions such as 360-degree encircling scleral buckling, 360-degree cryotherapy and 360-degree laser photocoagulation have been advocated by some ophthalmologists as prophylaxis for the fellow eye against the development of a giant retinal tear and/or a retinal detachment, or to prevent its extension.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic 360-degree interventions in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tear to prevent the occurrence of a giant retinal tear, a retinal detachment or both.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1950 to December 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 6 December 2011. In addition, we searched the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) up to 2008 for information about other relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one prophylactic treatment for fellow eyes of patients with giant retinal tear against observation (no treatment) or another form of prophylactic treatment. In the absence of RCTs, we planned to discuss case-control studies that met the inclusion criteria but we would not conduct a meta-analysis using these studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review and therefore no assessment of methodological quality or meta-analysis could be performed.
MAIN RESULTS
No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No strong evidence in the literature was found to support or refute prophylactic 360-degree treatments to prevent a giant retinal tear or a retinal detachment in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tears.
Topics: Humans; Retinal Detachment; Retinal Perforations
PubMed: 22336825
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006909.pub3 -
International Journal of Retina and... Feb 2024Toxoplasma gondii causes ocular toxoplasmosis (OT), involving inflammation, scarring, and retinal complications. The OT complications were retinal detachment (RD), and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Toxoplasma gondii causes ocular toxoplasmosis (OT), involving inflammation, scarring, and retinal complications. The OT complications were retinal detachment (RD), and retinal breakage (RB). Surgical interventions like scleral buckling (SB) and vitrectomy are common. Limited understanding exists of the safety and efficacy of surgical management of RD/RB secondary to OT. Another complication is toxoplasmosis-related macular holes (tMH), with sparse evidence on surgical outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to clarify clinical characteristics, and surgical results, and enhance understanding of RD, RB, and MH secondary to OT.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science database were queried for retrospective studies, case series and case reports that provided information on RD, RB and MH associated with OT and reported the outcomes of: (1) Retinal reattachment of RD/RB and tMH closure; (2) Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement; and (3) Complications. Heterogeneity was examined with I statistics. A random-effects model was used for outcomes with high heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was performed using the software R (version 4.2.3, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
RESULTS
Fourteen final studies, comprising a total of 96 patients were analyzed, 81 with RD or RB and 15 with tMH. Overall, surgical management was associated with several advantages: a high rate of retinal reattachment of RD/RB of 97% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 92-100%; I = 0%), retinal reattachment of just RD of 96% (95% CI 89-100%; I = 30%) and tMH closure 97% (95% CI 87-100; I = 12%). There were significant differences in BCVA after surgeries in studies of RD/RB (MD 0.60; 95% CI 0.35-0.65; I = 20%) and MH (MD 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.84; I = 0%). The overall complication rate associated with surgical procedures in RD/RB secondary to OT was confirmed to be 25%.
CONCLUSIONS
The systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the treatment approaches currently in use are effective, with a remarkable rate of retinal reattachment of RD/RB, tMH closure, and substantial improvements in visual acuity. More randomized, long-term studies on disease and surgical factors can provide valuable insights into their impact on anatomical and visual outcomes.
PubMed: 38424638
DOI: 10.1186/s40942-024-00540-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019A giant retinal tear (GRT) is a full-thickness neurosensory retinal break extending for 90° or more in the presence of a posterior vitreous detachment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A giant retinal tear (GRT) is a full-thickness neurosensory retinal break extending for 90° or more in the presence of a posterior vitreous detachment.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pars plana vitrectomy combined with scleral buckle versus pars plana vitrectomy alone for eyes with giant retinal tear.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 8), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in our electronic search. We last searched the electronic databases on 16 August 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pars plana vitrectomy combined with scleral buckle versus pars plana vitrectomy alone for giant retinal tear regardless of age, gender, lens status (e.g. phakic or pseudophakic eyes) of the affected eye(s), or etiology of GRT among participants enrolled in these trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-text articles, using Covidence. Any differences in classification between the two review authors were resolved through discussion. Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We found two RCTs in abstract format (105 participants randomized). Neither RCT was published in full. Based on the data presented in the abstracts, scleral buckling might be beneficial (relative risk of re-attachement ranged from 3.0 to 4.4), but the findings are inconclusive due to a lack of peer reviewed publication and insufficient information for assessing risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no conclusive evidence from RCTs on which to base clinical recommendations for scleral buckle combined with pars plana vitrectomy for giant retinal tear. RCTs are clearly needed to address this evidence gap. Such trials should be randomized, and patients should be classified by giant retinal tear characteristics (extension (90º, 90º to 180º, > 180º), location (oral, anterior, posterior to equator)), proliferative vitreoretinopathy stage, and endotamponade. Analysis should include both short-term (three months and six months) and long-term (one year to two years) outcomes for primary retinal reattachment, mean change in best corrected visual acuity, study eyes that required second surgery for retinal reattachment, and adverse events such as elevation of intraocular pressure above 21 mmHg, choroidal detachment, cystoid macular edema, macular pucker, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, and progression of cataract in initially phakic eyes.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinal Detachment; Retinal Perforations; Scleral Buckling; Treatment Outcome; Vitrectomy
PubMed: 31840810
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012646.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of neurosensory retina from the underlying retinal pigment epithelium. It is caused by retinal tears, which let... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of neurosensory retina from the underlying retinal pigment epithelium. It is caused by retinal tears, which let fluid pass from the vitreous cavity to the subretinal space. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), scleral buckling surgery and pneumatic retinopexy are three accepted management strategies whose efficacy remains controversial. Pneumatic retinopexy is considered in a separate Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of PPV versus scleral buckling for the treatment of simple RRD (primary RRD of any extension with up to two clock hours large break(s) regardless of their anterior/posterior localisation) in people with (phakia) or without (aphakia) a natural lens in the eye, or with an artificial lens (pseudophakia). A secondary objective was to assess any data on economic and quality-of-life measures.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 5 December 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPV versus scleral buckling surgery with at least three months of follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently extracted the data and study characteristics from the studies identified as eligible after initial screening. We considered the following outcomes: primary retinal reattachment, postoperative visual acuity, final anatomical success, recurrence of retinal detachment, number of interventions needed to achieve final anatomical success, quality of life and adverse effects. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included 10 RCTs (1307 eyes of 1307 participants) from Europe, India, Iran, Japan and Mexico, which compared PPV and scleral buckling for RRD repair. Two of these 10 studies compared PPV combined with scleral buckling with scleral buckling alone (54 participants). All studies were high or unclear risk of bias on at least one domain. Five studies were funded by non-commercial sources, while the other five studies did not report source of funding.There was little or no difference in the proportion of participants who achieved retinal reattachment at least 3 months after the operation in the PPV group compared to those in the scleral buckling group (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.98 to 1.16; 9 RCTs, 1261 participants, low-certainty evidence). Approximately 67 in every 100 people treated with scleral buckling had retinal reattachment by 3 to 12 months. Treatment with PPV may result in 4 more people with retinal reattachment in every 100 people treated (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 fewer to 11 more).There was no evidence of any important difference in postoperative visual acuity between participants in the PPV group compared to those in the scleral buckling group (mean difference (MD) 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.10, 6 RCTs, 1138 participants, low-certainty evidence).There was little or no difference in final anatomical success between participants in the PPV group and scleral buckling group (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.04, 9 RCTs, 1235 participants, low-certainty evidence). There were 94 out of 100 people treated with control (scleral buckling) that achieved final anatomical success compared to 96 out of 100 in the PPV group.Retinal redetachment was reported in fewer participants in the PPV group compared to the scleral buckling group (RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.96, 9 RCTs, 1320 participants, low-certainty evidence). Approximately 28 in every 100 people treated with scleral buckling had retinal detachment by 3 to 36 months. Treatment with PPV may result in seven fewer people with retinal detachment in every 100 people treated (95% CI 1 to 11 fewer).Participants treated with PPV on average needed fewer interventions to achieve final anatomical success but the difference was small and data were skewed (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06, 2 RCTs, 682 participants, very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence on quality of life suggested that more people in the PPV group were "satisfied with vision" compared with the scleral buckling group (RR 6.22, 95% CI 0.88 to 44.09, 1 RCT, 32 participants).All included studies reported adverse effects, however, it was not always clear whether they were reported as number of participants or number of adverse effects. Cataract development or progression was more prevalent in the PPV group (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.01), choroidal detachment was more prevalent in the scleral buckling group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.65) and new/iatrogenic breaks were observed only in the PPV group (RR 8.21, 95% CI 1.91 to 35.21). Estimates of the relative frequency of other adverse effects, including postoperative proliferative vitreoretinopathy, postoperative increase in intraocular pressure, development of cystoid macular oedema, macular pucker and strabismus were imprecise. Evidence for adverse effects was low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- or very low-certainty evidence indicates that there may be little or no difference between PPV and scleral buckling in terms of primary success rate, visual acuity gain and final anatomical success in treating primary RRD. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be less retinal redetachment in the PPV group. Some adverse events appeared to be more common in the PPV group, such as cataract progression and new iatrogenic breaks, whereas others were more commonly seen in the scleral buckling group such as choroidal detachment.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Retinal Detachment; Retinal Perforations; Scleral Buckling; Treatment Outcome; Visual Acuity; Vitrectomy
PubMed: 30848830
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009562.pub2